Relative Citation Rate Research Articles

Research Promotion Is Associated with Broader Influence and Higher Impact of Plastic Surgery Publications.

Social media have altered the mechanisms by which published research is disseminated and accessed. The objective of this study was to measure the effect of promotion on research article dissemination, influence, and impact in Plastic and Reconstructive Surgery . All articles published in Plastic and Reconstructive Surgery from January 1, 2016, to December 31, 2018, were obtained and reviewed to determine inclusion/exclusion and for the Altmetric Attention Score, citations, relative citation rate, and 16 unique promotional tags (e.g., journal club, editor's pick, press release, patient safety, and so on) as indexed on the Plastic and Reconstructive Surgery website. The analysis included 1502 articles. Statistical analysis was completed using descriptive statistics, Pearson correlations, and t tests where appropriate with a predetermined level of significance of p ≤ 0.05. A total of 637 articles (42.4 percent) had a promotional tag, whereas 252 (16.8 percent) had multiple tags. Articles with promotional tags had a higher Altmetric Attention Score (30.35 versus 8.22; p < 0.001), more citations (11.96 versus 8.47; p < 0.001), and a higher relative citation rate (2.97 versus 2.06; p < 0.001) compared to articles without a tag. Articles with multiple tags had a higher Altmetric Attention Score (50.17 versus 17.39; p < 0.001), more citations (15.78 versus 9.47; p < 0.001), and a higher relative citation rate (3.67 versus 2.51; p < 0.001) compared to articles with only one tag. As the number of tags increased for an article, Altmetric Attention Score ( p < 0.001), citation count ( p < 0.001), and relative citation rate ( p < 0.001) likewise increased. This analysis strongly suggests that promotion of research articles is associated with significantly wider dissemination, broader visibility, and more subsequent citations in the literature.

Root Canal Disinfection Articles with the Highest Relative Citation Ratios. A Bibliometric Analysis from 1990 to 2019.

The relative citation rate (RCR) is a normalized article-level metric useful to assess the impact of research articles. The objective of this bibliometric study is to identify and analyze, in root canal disinfection, the 100 articles having the highest RCRs in the period 1990–2019, then compare them with the top 100 articles most cited. A cross-sectional study was performed, and the search strategy ((Disinfection AND root canal) AND ((“1990/01/01”[Date-Publication]: “2019/12/31”[Date-Publication]))) relied on PubMed (n = 4294 documents), and article data were downloaded from the iCite database. The 100 articles with the highest RCRs and the top 100 cited were selected and evaluated in bibliometric terms. Among the 100 articles with the highest RCRs, there were no differences in the three decades for RCRs values, but there were in citations, being 2000–2009 the most cited. The USA was the predominant country (n = 30), followed by Brazil (n = 14). The most frequent study designs were reviews (n = 27) and in vitro (n = 25) and ex vivo (n = 24) studies. All subfields were well represented, although they varied over time. In 2010–2019, regenerative procedures and irrigation/disinfection techniques were predominant. Considering the RCR’s top 100 articles, 76 were common with the 100 most cited articles. Using the RCR metric allowed us to identify influential articles in root canal disinfection, a research field with topics of significance that fluctuate over time. Compared to citations, RCR reduces the time from publication to detection of its importance for the readership and could be a valid alternative to citation counts.

New Indicators of the Technological Impact of Scientific Production

Abstract Purpose Building upon pioneering work by Francis Narin and others, a new methodological approach to assessing the technological impact of scientific research is presented. Design/methodology/approach It is based on the analysis of citations made in patent families included in the PATSTAT database that is to scientific papers indexed in Scopus. Findings An advanced citation matching procedure is applied to the data in order to construct two indicators of technological impact: on the citing (patent) side, the country/region in which protection is sought and a patent family's propensity to cite scientific papers are taken into account, and on the cited (paper) side, a relative citation rate is defined for patent citations to papers that is similar to the scientific paper-to-paper citation rate in classical bibliometrics. Research limitations The results are limited by the available data, in our case Scopus and PATSTAT, and especially by the lack of standardization of references in patents. This required a matching procedure that is neither trivial nor exact. Practical implications Results at the country/region, document type, and publication age levels are presented. The country/region-level results in particular reveal features that have remained hidden in analyses of straight counts. Especially notable is that the rankings of some Asian countries/regions move upwards when the proposed normalized indicator of technological impact is applied as against the case with straight counts of patent citations to those countries/regions’ published papers. Originality/value In our opinion, the level of sophistication of the indicators proposed in the current paper is unparalleled in the scientific literature, and provides a solid basis for the assessment of the technological impact of scientific research in countries/regions and institutions.

Collaboration and citation impact: Trends in health sciences research at the University of Cape Town

Against a background of substantial growth in publication output in health sciences at the University of Cape Town (UCT) over the past two decades, we examined the relationship between collaboration with domestic and foreign institutions and resulting citations of co-published work. We report on trends in authorship and citation impact for health sciences research at UCT across three 3-year periods: 1999–2001, 2006–2008 and 2013–2015. We examined numbers of collaborative publications with domestic and foreign co-authors; the status of collaboration with other African countries; the location of the ‘drivers’ of the research (with ‘drivers’ indicated by first or last authorship); and expected and observed citation counts – used as an indicator of impact – over time. We found that the relative citation rate of the set of UCT health sciences publications has increased; the set of 1999–2001 publications was less frequently cited than expected for the journals in which the publications appear, while the 2006–2008 and 2013–2015 sets were cited more frequently than expected. Relative citation rates were greater for papers for which UCT shared international co-authorship than for papers with UCT-only or domestic co-authorship. Our findings confirm reports in the literature of higher citation of internationally co-authored publications. We additionally found that the publications with the highest relative citation rates were driven by authors from foreign institutions.&#x0D; Significance:&#x0D; &#x0D; Methods are presented for extracting, measuring, analysing and representing the citation impact of collaborative research.&#x0D; The relative citation rate of health sciences publications produced by UCT has increased and copublication with international authors has increased.&#x0D; The findings confirm reports in the literature of higher citation of publications co-authored with international collaborators.&#x0D; An apparent influence of foreign drivers on citation impact, holds risk for South African science.&#x0D;

Perceptions and attitudes of Small Animal Internal Medicine specialists toward the publication requirement for board certification.

BackgroundThe publication requirement for board certification in Small Animal Internal Medicine (SAIM) by the ACVIM is controversial.ObjectivesDirectly and indirectly evaluate the perceptions SAIM Diplomates have on the publication requirement. A secondary objective was to compare the frequency with which publications submitted for credentialing purposes (CredPubs) were cited compared to control articles.SubjectsOne thousand two hundred forty‐one SAIM Diplomates were sent an electronic survey.MethodsA electronic survey was sent to all SAIM Diplomates. Practice websites were evaluated for reference to publication or research. An electronic database was searched to identify the number of times a subset of CredPubs were cited was compared to control articles.ResultsFive hundred six individuals responded. The majority of respondents (n = 428, 85.25%) stated the requirement should be retained either with no changes (n = 186, 37.05%) or with clarifications or modifications (n = 242, 48.21%). A minority of respondents (n = 74, 14.7%) felt it should be eliminated. “Understanding the scientific process” was the most commonly selected reason (n = 467, 92.48%) for the publication requirement. All websites that mentioned research or publication did so using a positive sentiment. With regard to relative citation rates; 17% of CredPubs were in the lower quartile, 59.1% of CredPubs were in the interquartile range, and 23.5% were in the upper quartile compared to control articles.Conclusions and Clinical ImportanceA majority of SAIM Diplomates favored the retention of the publication requirement in some form. CredPubs were cited at rates similar to control articles.

Quantitative assessment of academic value and demand of journals and determination of core journals for a discipline

PurposeThe purpose of this paper is to propose an approach of quantitative assessment of academic value and demand of journals for a discipline.Design/methodology/approachThis study defines relative citation rate (RCR) and utilization rate (UR) of journals cited by a discipline with a case of inorganic chemistry discipline in Jilin University, ranks the journals in decreasing order of RCR and UR, and analyzes the RCR and UR curves with mathematical statistics and physics.FindingsThe RCR and UR curves can be expressed as: RCR(n)=N1exp(−n/t(N1))+N2exp(−n/t(N2))=64.54exp(−n/1.98)+31.14exp(−n/23.11) and UR(n)=Y1exp(−n/t(Y1))+Y2exp(−n/t(Y2))=85.06exp(−n/108.6)+12.94exp(−n/705.8). The parameters t(N1), t(N2), t(Y1) and t(Y2) can be used to assess quantitatively academica value and demand of journal for a discipline and to determine core journals of the discipline.Research limitations/implicationsThis approach is used to quantitatively assess academic value and demand of journals for a discipline.Practical implicationsThis approach may provide useful information for journal management of library.Originality/valueThe present work is original.

Is It a Home Run? Measuring Relative Citation Rates in Accounting Research

SYNOPSISWe propose a new set of citation metrics for evaluating the relative impact of scholarly research in accounting. Our metrics are based on current practices in bibliometrics and normalize citations by both field (accounting) and year of publication. We show that our normalized citation metrics dominate other commonly used metrics in accounting when predicting the long-term citation impact of recently published research. We conduct our analysis using citations from the Social Science Citation Index for the top six general interest accounting journals. More generally, our metrics can be readily constructed using any citation database and for any subfield of accounting. The metrics simply require the total citation counts for a benchmark set of papers published in the same calendar year. The use of these metrics should enable more informed performance evaluations of junior accounting researchers.

The Herrero-Villar approach to citation impact

Abstract This paper focuses on the evaluation of research institutions in terms of size-independent indicators. There are well-known procedures in this context, such as what we call additive rules, which provide an evaluation of the impact of any research unit in a scientific field based upon a partition of the field citations into ordered categories, along with some external weighting system to weigh those categories. We introduce here a new ranking procedure that is not an additive rule – the HV procedure, after Herrero & Villar (2013) – and compare it those conventional evaluation rules within a common setting. Given a set of ordered categories, the HV procedure measures the performance of the different research units in terms of the relative probability of getting more citations. The HV method also provides a complete, transitive and cardinal evaluation, without recurring to any external weighting scheme. Using a large dataset of publications in 22 scientific fields assigned to 40 countries, we compare the performance of several additive rules – the Relative Citation Rate, four percentile-based ranking procedures, and two average-based high-impact indicators – and the corresponding HV procedures under the same set of ordered categories. Comparisons take into account re-rankings, and differences in the outcome variability, measured by the coefficient of variation, the range, and the ratio between the maximum and minimum index values.

Which gender gap? Factors affecting researchers’ scientific impact in science and medicine

The article examines whether scientific production, research funding, Impact Factor of journals and size of collaborative teams have an influence on the propensity to receive more citations, and whether the influence of these factors differs across genders. Using a very complete database of funding, scientific papers and citations compiled at the individual researchers’ level, we estimate panel data regressions on the discipline-normalised citation rates of individual academics in Quebec. Our results show that although most of the indicators examined have a positive influence on the relative citation rate, when it comes to gender differences, not having enough public funding and raising private funding appear slightly detrimental for women in the health sciences. In addition, when women collaborate with the same number of co-authors as men, or target similar Impact Factor journals, their articles are less cited then those of their male colleagues. Almost no gender effect is found in the natural sciences and engineering where women are still a minority. Our results worryingly show that academics who publish with a larger proportion of female co-authors are less cited. Furthermore, when targeting similar Impact Factor journals, researchers who collaborate with a higher proportion of female co-authors are consistently less cited in both the health and NSE fields than if they were publishing with a male dominated group of co-authors.

Is It a Home Run? Measuring Relative Citation Rates in Accounting Research

Accounting academics have been at the forefront of research analyzing the use of relative performance evaluation metrics for business executives. Yet the use of such metrics for evaluating accounting academics is quite limited.This paper introduces metrics for evaluating the relative impact of accounting research publications. The metrics are based on current practices in bibliometrics and normalize citation rates by field, year of publication and publication type. The use of these metrics should facilitate more informed performance evaluations for accounting researchers.

How much does the expected number of citations for a publication change if it contains the address of a specific scientific institute? A new approach for the analysis of citation data on the institutional level based on regression models

Citation data for institutes are generally provided as numbers of citations or as relative citation rates (as, for example, in the Leiden Ranking). These numbers can then be compared between the institutes. This study aims to present a new approach for the evaluation of citation data at the institutional level, based on regression models. As example data, the study includes all articles and reviews from the Web of Science for the publication year 2003 (n = 886,416 papers). The study is based on an in‐house database of the Max Planck Society. The study investigates how much the expected number of citations for a publication changes if it contains the address of an institute. The calculation of the expected values allows, on the one hand, investigating how the citation impact of the papers of an institute appears in comparison with the total of all papers. On the other hand, the expected values for several institutes can be compared with one another or with a set of randomly selected publications. Besides the institutes, the regression models include factors which can be assumed to have a general influence on citation counts (e.g., the number of authors).

Excellence and growth dynamics: A comparative study of the Matthew effect

In the past two decades, centres of excellence (CoE) and other ‘research excellence initiatives’ likely to increase the cumulative advantages and stratification of science, have been implemented in many countries. Based on empirical studies of CoE in four Nordic countries, this paper examines how the resources provided by CoE schemes (generous long-term funding, prestige and visibility) add to the success and growth dynamics of the CoE. The data indicate a modified Matthew effect with ceilings and limits avoiding excessive accumulation of resources. Important impacts of the CoE are found, in particular in terms of enabling more interdisciplinary collaboration and risk-taking and enhancing international recruitment to the research areas involved. But, in contrast to what might be expected, the CoE grant seem to add less to the relative citation rate of those already performing at the highest level, than for those performing at a somewhat lower level prior to the CoE grant.

Creating a New Combined Influence Measure: An Analysis of the Citation Network

This paper utilizes social network analysis to create a comprehensive evolution system to determine the significance of research papers. Citation network was analyzed from H-index, Impact factor and relative citation rate, which indicates the influence of the author, published journal and the paper on the field respectively. Influence citation network was built visually though transforming the 16 science network paper’s citation multi-value matrix into two-value matrix in UCINET and by analyzing those influence measures, the scores of each paper were calculated and results maps through visualization. The results concern: the paper of Collective dynamics of `small-world' networks laid a foundation on network science. Besides, a general methodology is provided to determine the role or influence measure of academic journals.

Do citations and impact factors relate to the real numbers in publications? A case study of citation rates, impact, and effect sizes in ecology and evolutionary biology.

Metrics of success or impact in academia may do more harm than good. To explore the value of citations, the reported efficacy of treatments in ecology and evolution from close to 1,500 publications was examined. If citation behavior is rationale, i.e. studies that successfully applied a treatment and detected greater biological effects are cited more frequently, then we predict that larger effect sizes increases study relative citation rates. This prediction was not supported. Citations are likely thus a poor proxy for the quantitative merit of a given treatment in ecology and evolutionary biology—unlike evidence-based medicine wherein the success of a drug or treatment on human health is one of the critical attributes. Impact factor of the journal is a broader metric, as one would expect, but it also unrelated to the mean effect sizes for the respective populations of publications. The interpretation by the authors of the treatment effects within each study differed depending on whether the hypothesis was supported or rejected. Significantly larger effect sizes were associated with rejection of a hypothesis. This suggests that only the most rigorous studies reporting negative results are published or that authors set a higher burden of proof in rejecting a hypothesis. The former is likely true to a major extent since only 29 % of the studies rejected the hypotheses tested. These findings indicate that the use of citations to identify important papers in this specific discipline—at least in terms of designing a new experiment or contrasting treatments—is of limited value.

Collaboration and the Generation of New Knowledge in Networked Innovation Systems: A Bibliometric Analysis

Canola, a high-value, export-oriented agricultural commodity, was developed in Canada over the course of 40 years in public institutions, driven by imported technology and imported research scientists. The evolution of canola R&D closely mirrors the evolution of the Triple Helix Models of innovation. Through the application of longitudinal citation analysis, using five-year intervals, publications from Canadian public institutions involved in canola R&D have been analyzed. In the most recent five- year interval, the relative citation rates of public sector research increased by 60% compared to the global average. A unique fixed-effect negative binomial regression model is used to demonstrate the critical relationship between the institutional arrangement that governs collaboration and the production of knowledge that underscores technological innovation.

Evolution of technology dependence among leading semiconductor companies

PurposeThe purpose of this paper is to examine the characteristics and evolution of the technology‐dependence networks of leading semiconductor companies. By comparing and contrasting technology‐dependence networks in the 6‐, 8‐ and 12‐inch chip eras, this study clarifies the differences among integrated device manufacturers (IDMs) and foundries, and among each company in different eras.Design/methodology/approachLeading companies were identified by technological crowdedness and technological prestige to avoid massive actors. Strong ties were extracted to avoid too many relationship ties at the company network level. Strong ties represented directional technology relationships among companies whose citation counts and relative citation rates were higher. The technology‐dependence network of leading companies in three chip eras was examined by social network analysis.FindingsTechnology dependence among IDMs was the weakest, and their technology dependence upon foundries decreased in the 12‐inch chip era. The highest technology interdependence appeared among foundries and the reduction of their dependence upon IDMs. Technology dependence is expanded primarily by foundries, significant among GlobalFoundries, TSMC, UMC, and VIS.Practical implicationsIDM could invite foundries with technology dependence to form a strategic consortium. That way, the foundries could monitor potential competitors with relationship of technology dependence; in an advanced sense, the foundries could make use of the network to practice commercial maneuvers and create competitive advantage. Scholars may also observe semiconductor manufacturing technology's evolving into the maturity stage of product life cycle by interpreting foundries' highly technology interdependent relationships.Originality/valueThis is the first study to use strong ties in patent citation networks to represent technology‐dependence relationships.

Are Iranian scientists recognized as their productivity enhances? A comparison of Iran’s impact to global norms in different subfields of Science Citation Index during 2002–2005

Witnessing a substantial growth rate in its scientific production, Iran is considered as one of the recently rising stars in scientific contribution scene. However, its impact in science progress is widely unknown, especially at global level. Studying Iran’s scholarly publications and recognition in SCI, the present communication tries to clarify the country’s science system performance using regression analyses and then to compare its performance to that of the world, using Relative Citation Rate (RCR) and Relative Subfield Citedness (RW). The results of the regression analyses reveal that although Iran displays considerable weaknesses in its performance, it is increasingly recognized as its outputs grow. According to the RCR values, Iran performed at/above the global level in 21 subfields. However, the RW values show that the country’s performance is above the global level in only two subfields. Although Iran is very far from an ideal situation; these evidences can be considered as heralds of a successful movement towards a wealthy scientific future.

Creation of journal-based publication profiles of scientific institutions — A methodology for the interdisciplinary comparison of scientific research based on the J-factor

A form of normalisation is presented for the evaluation of citation data on multidisciplinary research. This method is based on the existing classification according to the publishing journals and not on the classification of output according to ISI subject categories. A publication profile is created for each institution to be investigated. This profile accounts for the weight of publications in a journal, represented by the number of publications as a proportion of the total output of the institution. In accordance with this weight, the citation rate of each journal is compared to a qualified relative indicator. The final result is a relative citation rate J, which is the relative perception of the performance of an institution accounting for its publication and citation habits and makes a transdisciplinary comparison possible.

Evaluations of individual scientists and research institutions

Evaluations of individual scientists and research institutions

Relative Superiority Coefficient of papers: A new dimension for institutional research performance in different fields

Cross-field comparison of citation measures of scientific achievement or research quality is severely hindered by the diversity of the stage of development and citation habits of different disciplines or fields. Based on the same principles of RCR (Relative Citation Rate) and RW (Relative Subfield Citedness), a new dimension — the Relative Superiority Coefficient (SC n ) in research quality was introduced. This can indicate clearly the relative research level for research groups at multiple levels in the respective field by consistent criteria in terms of research quality. Comparison of the SC n within or across 22 broad fields among 5 countries were presented as an application model. Hierarchical Cluster and One-Way ANOVA were applied and processed by the statistical program SPSS. All original data were from Essential Science Indicators (ESI) 1996–2006.